The Kaduna Refining Petrochemical Company Limited (KRPC) has been ordered to pay the pension entitlement of its former staff, Zakari Abdullahi, his pension entitlement from September 16, 1996, till date.
The court stated that the claimant was entitled to terminal benefits, following the termination of his 11 years service with the company on grounds of services no longer needed.
Justice Sinmisola Adeniyi while delivering the judgment also held that the order be complied with within 30 days.
The court further declared that the withholding of the claimant’s pension was unconstitutional, unlawful and against public policy.
From facts, the claimant, Abdullahi had contended that by the provisions of the NNPC Staff Condition of Service, which governed his appointment with the defendant, he was qualified for the payment of pension having served the organisation for 11 years.
The claimant also submitted that because his gratuity had been paid there was no reason to withhold his pension, but all efforts to get it over the years had proved abortive.
In its defence, KRPC argued that the claimant was not in the category of staff that qualified for retirement benefits as his appointment was terminated for gross misconduct.
The defendant through its counsel, O.J. Opawale, also contended that proper parties were not before the court, as the defendant is a separate and distinct legal entity from the NNPC.
Opawale in addition averred that the Condition of Service which was the substratum of the claimant’s case was not binding on the defendant.
In opposition, the claimant counsel, A.A Manta maintained that the provisions of the NNPC Staff Condition of Service governed his client’s appointment with the defendant and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.
The court on its part after evaluation of both counsel’s submissions held that NNPC Condition of Service was binding on the parties.
Adeniyi also dismissed the argument that the claimant’s appointment was terminated on ground of alleged misconduct but on “services no longer required” as stated in the termination letter.
“My view is that the act of withholding the claimant’s pension for over two decades, 26 years to be precise, is not only unlawful but morally wrong and callous.
” The flagrant violation of the claimant’s constitutional right by the defendant shall not be condoned by this court.
“It will therefore be unreasonably excessive for the defendant, having terminated the claimant’s appointment on the grounds of services no longer required
“Having admitted his gratuity was paid, to now turn to contend that the claimant is not entitled to pension for alleged acts of misconduct”, the judge ruled.
